If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I certainly hope so. Wayland is almost 1.0, and is still terrible. "Remote access? Eh, we'll tack it on later...If we feel the need." "Who wants to use all those old, polished WMs? Toss 'em out! And who wants to write a new WM when you can write an entire compositor instead?" "Client-side decorations are a great idea!"

I certainly hope so. Wayland is almost 1.0, and is still terrible. "Remote access? Eh, we'll tack it on later...If we feel the need." "Who wants to use all those old, polished WMs? Toss 'em out! And who wants to write a new WM when you can write an entire compositor instead?" "Client-side decorations are a great idea!"

Maybe im "a noob", "a youngling", or any other term you could use to describe someone who is (relatively -- 3 years or so) new to linux. But remote access ive never ONCE used. I've always gone for a full desktop via an RDP-like protocol. Just seems like a better solution to me because you do get the full desktop available to you. Also, isnt X11's remote protocol REALLY inefficient for modern applications?

As far as the "old, polished WMs" Anyone using Ratpoison / blackbox / openbox / etc, will probably stick to X11 for a long time anyway.

Writing an entire compositor? Kwin, Mutter,and Compiz already ARE their own compositor because you have to bypass X for the most part. Talk to the developers, read their blog posts-- they spend most of their time bypassing X and all of its legacy stuff. How about instead of taking the tie to bypass and trick X, we just remove X from the equation?

Client side decorations, I'll admit I had reservations about simply because I wanted to make sure I could force-quit apps that had hung. Turns out, Wayland's developers are doing something about apps like that. I don't care if apps write their own UI, if they are taking the time TO write their own UI, let them do it. But as far as apps that have hung / crashed / froze:

- the client can specify a rectangle (typically the title bar) where
the should interpret click-and-drag as a window move operation. This
lets the compositor move unresponsive windows around and is similar to
what Mike Paquette described.

- the client can specify another kind of rectangle (typically the
close button), where the compositor should expect a certain response
(window going away, for example) within a few seconds or so. This
will let the compositor pop up a "Window didn't respond, force quit?"
dialog either immediately or on the second click attempt.

- unresponsive windows wont go blank, the compositor has the contents
of the window and can repaint from that. The window contents will
stop updating, but the compositor doesn't rely on the apps being
responsive to repaint the screen. This is a key feature of composited
window systems.

For the most part--yes. the exceptions being proprietary drivers. Wayland, IIRC, forces them to either support the official Linux KMS infrastructure, or to provide a drop-in replacement for KMS that they can use that can hook into Wayland and do everything that Wayland expects KMS to handle. Such as blink-free boot.

Oh yes, that alone is enough to call a piece of software that has served its purpose for 25 years "retarded". Let's see if your preciousss survives as much as X did.

PS: Wth is a "more polished experience"? How do you measure that?

With my trusty polishometer of course.

And i didn't call X retarded. It served its purpose and we don't need it anymore (at least in some months). The same way we don't need horses anymore. And thats the reason people like krh and others developed it and thats why many X hackers back it. If you think don't know shit go tell them in the Mailing list or better start hacking on X12 or something completely new.

>But remote access ive never ONCE used. I've always gone for a full desktop via an RDP-like protocol. Just seems like a better solution to me because you do get the full desktop available to you.
I haven't yet happened to use a single app remote connection... I have used the whole desktop over X11/NX. Lately I have not had 2 computers running X...

>Also, isnt X11's remote protocol REALLY inefficient for modern applications?
It has its inefficiencies unfortunately, yes. Thus NX. I wouldn't be opposed to X12 or something that kept the good ideas but made things more efficient.

>As far as the "old, polished WMs" Anyone using Ratpoison / blackbox / openbox / etc, will probably stick to X11 for a long time anyway.
Goddamn right.

>Writing an entire compositor? Kwin, Mutter,and Compiz already ARE their own compositor
I really don't care. They can keep their 3d, I don't want it.

>if they are taking the time TO write their own UI, let them do it.
That's a negative. If I wanted that, I would use Chrome and all those windows apps like RealPlayer that do that. But I don't!

>
>Writing an entire compositor? Kwin, Mutter,and Compiz already ARE their own compositor
I really don't care. They can keep their 3d, I don't want it.

Im ignoring the others because they mostly seem like opinion pieces. THIS one however I did want to point out: There's more to being a compositor than just providing 3D. Being a compositor allows applications / toolkits to leverage the GPU for display, leaving the CPU and RAM to do other things. Also it allows for tear-tree video, transparency (yes there are legit cases for transparency, in the windows world-- desktop peek, or the compositor effect to show all windows side by side and let you select the individual one you want instead of alt-tabbing through them one by one). And i'm sure an actual developer (Martin? if he's reading this thread) could point out technical benefits to compositing as well, but unfortunately I am not a developer.